If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. If you have a complaint concerning any of the content herein, please use the contact form below and we'll investigate accordingly.

Well you appear to be the one without a clue!! Consumers, are ALSO taxpayers, and that tariff free 'bonus' that you appear to believe comes as a result of the largesse of the 'EU', but it actually comes at a heck of a price!!---and guess what? - it is the UK taxpayer that pays it!!
Personally, I believe that it is is much fairer for the person who want's to buy an Audi, to do so at HIS/HER cost - instead of being subsidised by the taxpayer - many of whom can't even afford to buy a Ford - never mind helping to subsidise someone who can afford to buy a luxury car!!

So in this argument you are trying to say that the contribution to the EU is larger than the Tariffs applied to EU and EUFTA goods inbound?

The EU net contribution is around £10bn a year.

This estimate (used by Leave to show that "they would suffer more than we would") gives an estimate of around £12.9bn in tariffs applied to EU imports.

So the UK consumer/taxpayer would save the net contribution of £10bn but pay an extra £12.9bn in tariffs......

Food is one areas where the tariffs are especially high with a trade weighted average of 22% (for the EU as a whole - the UK would vary, but not by a huge amount) and as food makes up a greater share of people "who can't even afford a Ford" expenses it will hit them harder than the 10% on a fancy (or not so fancy) car.

Originally Posted by Stevlin

Incidentally - it YOU actually realised how 'tariffs work', then even YOU would have realised that with duty being applied to imports , the EU exporters WOULD BE FUNDING THE UK TREASURY, instead of receiving a subsidy from it - IF, they continued to have the balance of trade - which, as it is 27 countries to one - it more than likely they will.
Indeed - when importing 'foreign goods' - currently from outside of the EU, duties/taxes have to be paid to the UK customs , in order to have those goods put on sale in the country...... and yes, the importer will put that 'duty' on the product price, and the consumer will pay it.....but the treasury WILL receive a stream of revenue from that duty, instead of subsidising the EU....and of course, that extra product on cost makes that product having to compete with other imports......so, good old competition comes into play!!

The IMPORTER is responsible for the duty never the exporter.

How could an exporter responsible to UK customs for paying the duties in a UK port? By definition, they aren't in the UK so how does HMRC contact them or extract payment?

The importer is, by definition in the UK so if they want the goods so they have to pay to have them released from customs.

Either way, the duty paid to HMRC has to be paid by someone ultimately and that person is always the last buyer, i.e. end consumer. Even if the tariff is applied to components and the assembly is done in the UK the extra costs for those components above the cost "at the factory gate" of the supplier, is folded into the final price of the goods.

You can keep kidding yourself that you are sticking it to the EU if tariffs are put on EU imports but the EU producers will still be getting the same price for their goods and you will be paying more for them.

Well you appear to be the one without a clue!! Consumers, are ALSO taxpayers, and that tariff free 'bonus' that you appear to believe comes as a result of the largesse of the 'EU', but it actually comes at a heck of a price!!---and guess what? - it is the UK taxpayer that pays it!!
Personally, I believe that it is is much fairer for the person who want's to buy an Audi, to do so at HIS/HER cost - instead of being subsidised by the taxpayer - many of whom can't even afford to buy a Ford - never mind helping to subsidise someone who can afford to buy a luxury car!!

Originally Posted by Stevlin

EU wise, undoubtedly - (as will EU exports to the UK).....however, the UK WILL be able to offset much of that via the potential to advantageously export to many more countries than the 27 and you shouldn't really believe that benefits of EU membership to the UK is one way traffic........and nor should you , because of this, believe that a mutually advantageous deal will not be agreed.
Clearly, France and Germany will wish to ensure that the UK do not appear to be better off post Brexit...........but many other countries will not want to cut off their nose to spite their face....

When I cite forecasts that predict economic damage you (and others) have said that we cannot rely on forecasts.

Yet here you are forecasting that the UK WILL (not "might") be able to offset those losses (although you do say "much of" which implies "not all of")

[When I cite forecasts that predict economic damage you (and others) have said that we cannot rely on forecasts.

Nonsense - economic forecasts , although frequently subsequently seen to be unreliable, are an accepted tool for gauging economic outlooks, however, they should NOT ignore the potential for replacement deals, or in fact pretend to know the details of a post Brexit UK/EU trade deal, which has two way benefits. Brexit has a two way effect on trade doesn't it?? http://uk.businessinsider.com/liam-f...brexit-2017-10

Yet here you are forecasting that the UK WILL (not "might") be able to offset those losses (although you do say "much of" which implies "not all of")

Exactly......of course they will.....India alone has the capacity to provide a large consumer market....and we wouldn't have to pay for the privilege....or have a ridiculous additional Parliament ...... for which , unless I've missed it, you have still to justify its existence for obtaining beneficial trade.

Nonsense - economic forecasts , although frequently subsequently seen to be unreliable, are an accepted tool for gauging economic outlooks, however, they should NOT ignore the potential for replacement deals, or in fact pretend to know the details of a post Brexit UK/EU trade deal, which has two way benefits.

well the leaked gov assesments did assume we got free trade deals with US and others and they added AT MOST 2%
in total, and that was then factored in to the 3 scenarios (SM, FTA, WTO) to get NET figures of at least -2% (i.e. losing 4% from EU but gaining 2% from other) up to -8%. If we didn't secure these mythical deals then the losses would be worse.

ok Fox was referring to replicating the 40 FTAs we will be losing by leaving the EU, so zero net gain.

Furthermore, various trade experts have pointed out that you can't simply "cut and paste" those deals (e.g. replace "EU" with "UK" in the text) for several reasons. One of which is rules of origin.

The TLDR of that is that unless serious modifications are made to the agreements the other parties (e.g. S. Korea) would be able to take advantage of the lower tariffs into the UK but the UK would not be able take advantage of the lower tariffs to them because the goods the UK sold would not have a high enough content of UK parts. So those countries would be quite happy to sign up on the current terms, but would be getting a better deal than now. They could then extract concessions from the UK in order to get back to where we started.

Exactly......of course they will.....India alone has the capacity to provide a large consumer market....and we wouldn't have to pay for the privilege....or have a ridiculous additional Parliament ...... for which , unless I've missed it, you have still to justify its existence for obtaining beneficial trade.

i don't know why Brexiters keep thinking India is such a prize.

India's economy is roughly the size of France's and they are alot further away!

Not only that but their preferences for goods and services is different from what the UK tends to offer.

The UK currently exports about $4bn to India, about 1% if our exports, even if we tripled those exports land no FTA in history has come close to that) that's only $12bn, less than half of what we sell to France alone.

Oh and India has made it crystal clear that any deal with them will involve making immigration into the UK by Indians much easier......

So the UK consumer/taxpayer would save the net contribution of £10bn but pay an extra £12.9bn in tariffs......

So that is an extra 12.9bn for the Government to spend on public services or give back to the taxpayer - considering that increasing spending on the NHS is quite popular tthen this could be a sound move.

well the leaked gov assesments did assume we got free trade deals with US and others and they added AT MOST 2%in total, and that was then factored in to the 3 scenarios (SM, FTA, WTO) to get NET figures of at least -2% (i.e. losing 4% from EU but gaining 2% from other) up to -8%. If we didn't secure these mythical deals then the losses would be worse.

Pure bunkum. British exports to the EU account for 12 per cent of our GDP, meaning that Whitehall is suggesting the UK will lose 2/3rds of our EU exports - do you really think that is credible?

So that is an extra 12.9bn for the Government to spend on public services or give back to the taxpayer - considering that increasing spending on the NHS is quite popular tthen this could be a sound move.

yes it is extra money for the Exchequer to spend on whatever, but it is from the UK consumer/taxpayer so it is exactly the same as increasing taxes. An increase in VAT would achieve a similar effect, would not require leaving the EU and would be less regressive as the effect on food prices would be less (and therefore less on lower incomes)

Pure bunkum. British exports to the EU account for 12 per cent of our GDP, meaning that Whitehall is suggesting the UK will lose 2/3rds of our EU exports - do you really think that is credible?

you misunderstanding the figures.

The 2-8% is not take today's GDP and minus (say) 8% as your calculation does.

It takes the model and runs a set of assumptions through it to get a "baseline" predicted GDP in 15 years time.

You then run the same model and assumptions but with whatever flavour Brexit you fancy to get another predicted GDP in 15 years time which you can compare with the "baseline".

When the gov assesment was run each Brexit type produced a lower GDP in 15 years time (2-8%).

Effectively this means lower growth each year than it would have been leading to a bigger change down the line, like the difference between getting a 2% raise every year for 15 years and an 2.2% raise every year can lead to a much lower salary over 15 years.

We can already see this happening as UK growth slipped from being the highest in the G7 to lowest. Even Italy is outgrowing the UK at the moment.

If this continues (and right now we have a weak £, member level SM access, a customs union and healthy growth in the world and EU markets so conditions are optimal) over time the UK will be poorernthan.it otherwise would have been.

well the leaked gov assesments did assume we got free trade deals with US and others and they added AT MOST 2%
in total, and that was then factored in to the 3 scenarios (SM, FTA, WTO) to get NET figures of at least -2% (i.e. losing 4% from EU but gaining 2% from other) up to -8%. If we didn't secure these mythical deals then the losses would be worse.

Really? Somewhat like the doomsday report predicated on the referendum result of Brexit??Did they also include for a trade deal with India, and the other emerging economies which are rapidly outstripping that of the EU???

ok Fox was referring to replicating the 40 FTAs we will be losing by leaving the EU, so zero net gain.

Nonsense - and there is no reason why those current FTAs shouldn't continue either - as the UK were also individual signatories to those Agreements - as were all EU member states.

Furthermore, various trade experts have pointed out that you can't simply "cut and paste" those deals (e.g. replace "EU" with "UK" in the text) for several reasons. One of which is rules of origin

See above

The TLDR of that is that unless serious modifications are made to the agreements the other parties (e.g. S. Korea) would be able to take advantage of the lower tariffs into the UK but the UK would not be able take advantage of the lower tariffs to them because the goods the UK sold would not have a high enough content of UK parts. So those countries would be quite happy to sign up on the current terms, but would be getting a better deal than now. They could then extract concessions from the UK in order to get back to where we started.
i don't know why Brexiters keep thinking India is such a prize.

India's economy is roughly the size of France's and they are alot further away!

And still growing - at a faster rate than the sclerotic EU...and is only one of the global economies that is outstripping that of the EU.

Not only that but their preferences for goods and services is different from what the UK tends to offer.

The UK currently exports about $4bn to India, about 1% if our exports, even if we tripled those exports land no FTA in history has come close to that) that's only $12bn, less than half of what we sell to France alone.

Yeah - but there is no need to finance the French inefficient farming via CAP - so that is a huge bonus for a start....oh yes, and there is no requirement for joining an undemocratic political entity - just for accessing trade benefits!!.... and of course, the payment of an unaffordable membership fee does not have to be paid!!

Oh and India has made it crystal clear that any deal with them will involve making immigration into the UK by Indians much easier......

So what? We already take more immigrants from non- EU countries....as you seem to keep forgetting, there is NO objection at all to immigration.....PROVIDED it is controlled.

yes it is extra money for the Exchequer to spend on whatever, but it is from the UK consumer/taxpayer so it is exactly the same as increasing taxes. An increase in VAT would achieve a similar effect, would not require leaving the EU and would be less regressive as the effect on food prices would be less (and therefore less on lower incomes) you misunderstanding the figures.

There is nothing wrong with the CONSUMER paying for the goods , much fairer than being subsidised by the taxpayer - and as stated before - it IS much fairer for the Audi buyer to fund the expensive purchaser him/herself - and even better, because despite what you claim, FOOD will be much cheaper - a gain for both the taxpayer, and those on low income.

yes it is extra money for the Exchequer to spend on whatever, but it is from the UK consumer/taxpayer so it is exactly the same as increasing taxes. An increase in VAT would achieve a similar effect, would not require leaving the EU and would be less regressive as the effect on food prices would be less (and therefore less on lower incomes) you misunderstanding the figures.

Not sure why you think food prices would be less considering that the EU external tariff barrier keeps food prices about 17% above world food prices

The 2-8% is not take today's GDP and minus (say) 8% as your calculation does.

It takes the model and runs a set of assumptions through it to get a "baseline" predicted GDP in 15 years time.

You then run the same model and assumptions but with whatever flavour Brexit you fancy to get another predicted GDP in 15 years time which you can compare with the "baseline".

When the gov assesment was run each Brexit type produced a lower GDP in 15 years time (2-8%).

Effectively this means lower growth each year than it would have been leading to a bigger change down the line, like the difference between getting a 2% raise every year for 15 years and an 2.2% raise every year can lead to a much lower salary over 15 years.

We can already see this happening as UK growth slipped from being the highest in the G7 to lowest. Even Italy is outgrowing the UK at the moment.

If this continues (and right now we have a weak £, member level SM access, a customs union and healthy growth in the world and EU markets so conditions are optimal) over time the UK will be poorernthan.it otherwise would have been.

But we are barely growing our exports to the EU so in 15 years time they will still only be worth around 12% of GDP. So are you seriously trying to tell us that you believe that the UK will lose 2/3rds of our exports to the EU?